The durango has leaf springs in the rear as opposed to the coils in the Explorer, that is probably the difference there. I notice a difference between my '97 Rodeo (leaf) and '00 Trooper (coil)
I have to agree with paisan, The wheel hop is a function of leaf springs in the rear. This, of course can be greatly improved with "traction bars" or other bolt-on items. There are some very clever devices available to overcome the leaf-spring wind-up problems you describe.
It has very little to do with 'tuning' for the rough. Leaf springs have their strong points too. ie... they take up much less cabin space than coil springs.
If one recalls basic physics... any action has an equal and opposite reaction. When the rear wheels are pushing against the road, the axle is trying to 'spin' the opposite direction of the wheels. This causes the leaf springs to twist or wind up. If a bump occurs that causes either rear wheel to loose traction, the springs suddenly snap back. If this cycle continues... you have the "wheel hop" you describe. The devices that reduce this tendency usually have some type of '"snubber" that does not allow the wind-up to occur in the first place. The axle torque is directed into the frame instead of thru the leaf springs.
Have less give so that your back doesn't sag under heavy loads (like a trailer) that's why you'll see Explorer's and I'd imagine trooper's too, that are loaded with a heavy trailer driving down the road with the back of the car much lower ue to the weight.
Thanks for responding so quickly. Basically, I guess it's just different designs that cause this "hop". I can live with it as long as there's nothing wrong with the vehicle. That "X" brace that you mentioned (rcarboni), does that affect warranty? And how much does something like that cost? Also, what else could be done (you mentioned sway bar) that could improve the suspension/"hop that is either factory or third party installed that would be worth the money. Thanks again everyone for your knowledge and input. It is much appreciated.
Hey guys i was checking out the C&D the other day. Is it true the Durango with a 5.9 has a 9.6s 0-60 time? I was suprised to see that my trooper had a 9.0s 0-60 with only a 3.5l engine. I'm thinking the #s are wrong but can anyone here confirm or deny them?
There are many conflicting numbers for 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. The couple of guys I know who ran a 1/4 completely stock were around 16s flat. Some have G-teched an 8.0 second 0-60 while others have recorded a 9+ second 0-60 in stock trim. I think it has a lot to do with the driver and take-off. I do 6 second 0-60 times, but I have a "few" add-ons.
I have the 31/10.50-15 tires on my Durango and I was wondering if anyone knew what the correct air pressure should be. The tire said max air pressure is 50 psi but I just pump it up to 40 psi instead. This is the family vehicle and will be carrying heavy loads with the exception being regular luggage for a family of 4 with 2 small kids.
If you get Sept Motor Trend the 4.7 D does 0-60 in 8.2 sec and the 1/4 mile in 16.4 sec This is with the 3.92 gear and the 31/10.50 tires. On the other hand the Durango R/T in the Sept issue of Car and Driver does 0-60 in 8.1 sec and the 1/4 mile in 16.3 sec. Past articles have showned the regular 5.9 with 0-60 in the 9.1 sec range.
My wife and I test drove the Durango. I liked it. My wife thought the ride was too stiff, although she liked the ride of the Ford Expedition. We liked the interior, engine, etc. Is there anything we could do to soften the ride? The primary use for this vehicle will be hauling kids, with occasional weekend duty going camping or pulling a boat.
Bradbaker, remember that the DD sits on a truck chassis. We also drove the Expe and though we also liked the ride of the Ford, it was just too darn big. Overall, the 2WD is a perfect family hauler. If you opt for the 4WD or 4WDFT, like mine, you get used to the ride and the comfort in an SUV. We simply love our loaded DD.
If you want a softer ride you may want to look into one of the trucks with rear coil springs instead of rear leaf springs. While the leaf's give better towing capabilities, they don't help the ride. Try the Montero, Trooper, Explorer, Expedition, Pathfinder.
Have a 2000 Durango R/T with 4,000 miles on it and it is a Dog. 0-60 with good stopwatch but using speedo is 13 seconds. Runs good but very slow. Dad's 2000 Dakota Quad Cab 4.7 is a lot quicker. Added K&N and Jet chip with no noticable results. Have a 99 Chevy Pickup 4wd with 5.3 and this vehicle is MUCH quicker. Any ideas or is this a scam by Chrysler to sell high priced product.
I've heard a few reports that the whole R/T thing is mostly marketing flu-fla by DC. Can't confirm it myself though. (wouldn't but an american car after 1 ford escort and 3 K-Cars and 1 Acclaim)
The R/T is the same as a 5.9 SLT+, with the addition of a cat-back exhaust, performance-tuned computer, street tires, and some custom interior stuff like the seats.
If you just want the speed, I would buy a 5.9 SLT+ and add performance mods yourself as it would be less expensive.
manhattan2, You should be running a lot faster than 13s. You might want to have the dealer check it out. Also, a jet chip does nothing for this engine, and a K&N will only add a few hp. A better intake is the Intense Performance Stage III(www.intenseperformance.com) that draws in cool air.
Just talked to 2 Dodge dealers and Chrysler Rep at Factory. Factory said 5.9's are slower then 4.7 and nothing they can do. Spend 35 grand for an R/T and get a slow Durange, slower then the 4.7 according to Chrysler. What a shame. Probably the last Chrysler product I will ever buy. Taking car in Thursday to dealer to (look at) but they think nothing can be done. Anybody know a place to take Chrylser products in Chicago area that does performance work and knows what they are talking about??
Slower how? There is no doubt that the 4.7 is quick, and will keep up with the 5.9 off-the-line, but I haven't seen any 4.7s win in a 1/4 mile. The 5.9 sustains higher torque longer, and therefore will be faster in the long run. The 5.9 will also respond to most bolt-on mods better. With headers, cat-back, and open intake, a 5.9 is much faster.
Chrylser wants to phase out the 5.9 and replace it with the hemi 5.7 (my next D!). I don't doubt they would also want to push the 4.7, but what numbers do they have to show the 4.7 is faster? Are you just taking someone's word without proof?
There is no way a stock 5.9 in D would be running 0-60 in 13 sec. I suggest you find a new Jeweler , your stopwatch method doesnt cut it.
I watched a stock 5.9 RT DAK run 15.2's and another with a heavy fiber galss Cap on the bed run 15.7's.
Thus low 16.0s would probably be the normal time for a D.
Also, who would plunk 35K$ on a truck and not testdrive it?? If it was such a dog, why did you buy it?? One last point, anyone can see from the brochure, that he RT package gives 5Hp, some trim level equipment, and wheels.
Go buy a Mall Runner, then you will see what a dog is !
This topic always brings in different opinions/discussions about which motor is quickest or faster. I ordered a 5.9 and was disappointed when the durango came in with 4.7. (Sales Mgr error-got it at invoice for the mistake)The salesman quickly told me how responsive the 4.7 was and beg me to drive it. I agreed and was really surprised how quick it was. I then ask him to let me drive a 5.9 off the lot so I could compare the two and to my surprise the 4.7 still felt quicker. Still in disbelief I ask to drive another 5.9 off the lot and it too felt more sluggish than the 4.7. All had the 3.92 rear end. I bought the 4.7 and have been very happy since. Even my wife loves the sound of mashing the throttle and outran my toyota v-6 p-up when I tried to hold her out from passing me.
Does Full-Time Transfer Case = Full Time 4WD? What's everyone's opinions on Pro's / Con's? I want a grocery getter that will seat at least 6 and is NOT a minivan. I love the looks of the Durango, but will likely never take it off-roading. I want the option of 4WD for the winter driving.
You can get a part time system, NV231 or the FT4wD NV242 for about 300$ more. The FT4wd works great. It splits touque about 50/50 front to back which is great. You can also lock it in 4 HI and 4Lo.
Most cheap systems, AKA cute ute(Honda CRV, RAV4, Scoobado) use viscous couplers for their FT systems. However, on theirs your rear diff has to slip and loose traction first, then the fluid in the coupler(changes viscosity) transmits some touque to the front. Of course your rear end slides all over the place. Not so with the D's. Very stableand you can use it on dry pavement.
You can opt for the part time system, but you can only engage it in 4 Hi when there is snow or off raod.
I agree with Scott Q, there are some envious people who for some reason come out of the woodwork to bash the Durangos. Mine has been damn good, it is a great SUV. If you want a nice well equipped SUV with great towing capacity, strong drivetrain, get a D. If you want to spend the same $$$ but dont mind a V6 you can go with any others, but mind you, look at the tourque and weight specs. Then ask yourself if you can live with a SUV that weighs practically the same, yet has 100+ ft-lbs less tourque and gets about the same gas mileage and doesnt have a 3rd seat. If you tow anything the D is the way to go.
3rd row isn't an issue, cause you can buy 3rd row seats for any SUV for about $300-$400.
It's too bad you can't dis-engage the awd. I like to dis-engage mine when I'm on the highway in the dry weather.
The soobies are NOT the same as the CRV and RAV 4.
They have a 90/10 split front to rear on the Automatic Transmissions, and 50/50 on the Manual Transmissions. In the VDC model its a 35/65 split with traction control. The Escape, CRV and RAV 4 are as you explained...
The Durango is a great tow vehicle though, I'll definitely give it high marks in that area...
Sorry, but I would rather get a factory seat in a SUV which is long enough to support a 3rd seat. That leaves the D, or the Suburban, Expedition etc. Plus with the fold and tumble, it stores easy.
In regards to the Subarus, you are correct. They act like a FWD. Until this year(as I understand it) all were 90/10 split.
My point on these( family members, co workers have them) is that they can get squirly when you loose traction on the drive wheels when the tourque shoots to the nondrive wheels, especially on wet surfaces or if you goose it on a corner.
I like the D, since it tends not to do this. Plus the wheel base is so long that it is more stable.
Most people who buy these systems, have no idea how they work nor there limitations.
FWIW, My father has a 99 D. It has the NV242, but has a 2WD mode. We get the same mileage, 15 MPG around town, 16.5 mixed, 17 MPG hghway. Thus I conclude, there is no penalty when they eliminated the 2WD mode in the NV242.
I am saving my $$$ for the 2003 model when they put the 5.7 Hemi in them. The competion wont know what hit them then when you can get the D with 350 HP
Wow, a fast Dodge. Went to another dealer and he too said to expect 0-60 for Druango R/T of about 11-12 seconds. Mine going in Tuesday. No, I didn't take it to the strip but when I line it up against my 99 Chev. Pickup 4wd with 5.3 and the pickup literally runs away from me, well I don't need a strip to know Durango R/T is all hype. You Dodge lovers need to wake up. Buy GM and be happy without all those mods. Only 21 more payments and this dog is gone.
Maybe a better comparison would be, Suburban vs RT
Also did you order the RT or buy off the lot?? If off the lot, it must have fooled you into thinking it was fast or why else would you plunk down 35K$$ on a deal from the lot. Or did the salesman have the secret nitrous button turned on when you floored it during the test drive
manhattan2 obviously needs to sell some GMs off his lot as sales are down this month. He has posted nothing but bull, so obviously he is here as a troll looking for some action. Maybe if we ignore him he will go away.
I'm sorry you are unhappy with your D. If I was that unhappy with it I would not wait for 21 payments. I would gid rid of it now! Go spend another 10 grand and get yourself a Tahoe.
new for 2001 is the following power passenger seat newly designed seats w/heat and power bolsters push button transfer case new rear air w heater 16" X 8" wheels on slt+ one new color a deep red color deleted one of the grey colors new controls on air & heater
Look, if you want speed, go out and buy a sports car (as we did). Our loaded '00 DD FT4X4 is great off road and on road pulling a 5k trailer. And hey, it does get up and go - on (or off) the highway. I've run away from plenty of plain jane SUVs, off the light or getting on the highway, and that's with the 4.7L. IMHO, if you want more speed from your SUV, just spend about $4k for a Supercharger or even $500 for a Nitrous kit and you've got what you want - but why? It's an SUV for pete's sake! Now, our blown GT Mustang Convertible - well, that's a whole 'nuther story.....
Bought Durango R/T off the lot. Dealer just got it in. Raining an it seemed real strong but don't drive like an idiot either. I just don't think it's right but dealer said all is normal. When you spend 35K for something that is suppose to be quick and get a dog, it's discouraging. As a matter of fact, I just traded in a 99 Suburban which was faster then the R/T. Sure doesn't seem right to me. Got an Audi Quattro 2.7t and it is very quick. Like R/T quality, ride, handling and interior. Just very disappointed in performance. If you guys are getting good times from a Durango full time awd, I would like to know as Chrysler factory rep is telling me 12 second to 60 is normal. Taking to another (performance) Dodge dealer Tuesday for them to look at. I'll drive another Durango (not R/T) with 5.9 at that time. Perhaps all wheel drive is the problem. As for trading it off, don't want to loose 10K+ in 3 months. Not looking for a race car but something that a 6 cylinder pick up won't blow in the weeds. I have a 2000 Dakoda Quad Cab (4 real doors) with 4.7 and love the truck in every way except for gas mileage (15 on the road) and this truck is a lot quicker then R/T. If my R/T is normal, all reading this post should really check out other products before they spend so much for a dog. As for Mustang blown GT, I went that route too. Couldn't drive it if it was damp out let alone rain. Mustang build quality leaves a lot to be desired too. Yeah, I've had a lot of vehicles and NO, I don't sell vehicles. Just have best luck with GM trucks. (have 3 now) GM cars are far behind Chrysler in my opinion.
in Post 281, You state uou have a 99 Chevy 4wd 5.3 L. You have a Durango RT(which you are complaining about), in this post you state you have a 4.7 DAK Quad Cab and a Audi Quattro 2.7T
So in my mind you have spent 35K for the D, another 30K for the 99 Chevy 4WD PU, Probably 30K+ for the DAK and 25K?? on the Audi!
That is over 120K$+ Wow! You buy a lot of cars.
Keep your D another 2 yrs and I'll make you an offer
Hey guys, how do you find the difference in the AWD v. the PT4WD? I just bought a 2000 Trooper with the AWD (sorry, didn't like the curvyness of the durango and have had much problems with chrysler vehicles in the past)
I love the AWD on it but was curious what downsides any of you have seen on the AWD side v. the PT4wd versions.
I have the FT4WD NV242 and it is basically transparent. I wanted it so the wife would not have to worry about locking it into 4Hi mode, very good on wet surfaces/snow. Note my wife puts it in 4Hi Lock when it snows to lock the center diff. Of course you can look at it this way, it was a $300 option, so I couldnt see not getting it.
Also, I find the Trooper personally ugly, dont care for the box construction, so out of date. Carrying the spare on the back also is so out of date.Also two brother in laws had 89 Troopers, one had blown head gasket/cracked head at 80K, other had two failed rear diffs, leaky rear main seal. His wife had bad luck with a 87 I-Mark Turbo, should have gotten a Shelby Turbo. The turbo failed at 60K which. Told them to run synthetic, didnt listen. My Turbo cars still run, two with over 140K on them.
Also why are the sales of the Trooper in the tank?? Looks like they will sell under 20K unit this year?? Guess the market has rejected them. They are 35th in sales in SUV class. Go Here:
Were sales always that low?? My Neighbor had a 93 which he paid 27K$ for. Seemed fairly good until he hit about 90K, then he had problems with the AC and injection. Traded it in on a Volvo.
Yep I liked the boxyness, the rear tire is way more convienient when you have to change a tire than the underneath version. I'm not going to start a D v. Trooper argument, cause it's a preference thing. I too love the FT AWD, works very well so far. I had a '97 rodeo that I put 120,000 miles on and it never once visited the dealer. 1 Set of Tires, 2 sets of brake pads, oil changes every 3K miles. Still ran like the day i got it when I traded it in on the 2000 Trooper. It's shorter than a D, but has more interior storage and I liked the very high amount of standard equipment. Chrysler scarred me with 3 K cars in the 90's and a 1994 acclaim that has had over $9K of warranty work done in 90K miles.
I love my K's. Have a 86 Turbo Z CS, a 90 Daytona ES Turbo, a 89 Shadow ES Turbo, a 89 Spirit Turbo, and just got a 90 Daytona Shelby with the VNT Intercooled Turbo. Note, they have the same basic floor pan as a K-car. Great Engineering in my book.
They are great cars, cheap to run, easy to tweak, get great gas mileage, and parts are plentiful. Just got back from an SDAC event, watched many run 12's with simple mods. For example at dyno day a guy with a 2.5 Turbo and 160K on the short block put 247 HP and 386 ft-lbs of tourque to the wheels with his 86 Omni GLHS. Note he runs 12.5's. Has 3" exh, volvo intercooler, a 10$ grainger valve to control boost, +20 injectors, 30$ digital AF guage to monitor fuel curve, fresh clutch, and slicks.
Not to shabby.
So please dont rag on K cars, if the people who owned them took care of them, they would routinely get 200K miles. I have seen many with that mileage over the years. That 2.2/2.5 block is indestructable. Have seen many run at 25+ lbs of boost on stock rods, pistons, bottome end.
Well ours were extremely well kept, but the head gaskets kept bleeding, and the cars rusted out. It's a known fact that the K-cars were extremely poor vehicles, I'm not even going to debate that with you.
These were the 2.2l engines, not the Turbo 2.5, I loved my '86 Lebaron GTS Turbo (til it got stolen and they bent the frame driving over a median, and as a result the tranny kept going on it after that)
Thats right mrboost.I do have alot of money in cars as some are for my business.The 2 trucks are work trucks and I love the dakota quad with the 4.7.anyone who would pay the extra money for a 4 door ford is crazy as this wiil do all they will for 6 grand less.The audi is my wifes everyday driver and the Durango is mine.I love everything about the durango,ride,looks,handeling it's just every magazine i pick up says 0-60 time of 8 seconds and unless there is something wrong with mine the only way it will do that is to drop it off a cliff.As i said above i love the dakota and enjoy driving the durango it's just either very overated power wise or the dealers in the chicagoland area don't know what there doing as they tell me that 12 second 0-60 is normal for this which i just find hard to believe with all the h.p. and torque.In retrospect i wish i'd have saved the money on the r/t package and upgraded the tires and rims myself and went with the 4.7 and saved alot of money.my mistake buying into the hype.
Can anyone tell me if part-time drive can be used on wet pavement? I currently have a Jeep with Select-Trac. I like the convenience of the 2WD with 4 wheel full time option. In the winter, main roads are cleared before back roads and full-time 4WD can be used on both. What will I do when I get the Durango I now have a deposit on? My husband doesn't want me to lock into a full time system because of gas mileage. Is it that much better on a system with 2WD with part-time option? I'm afraid I won't know how to drive the Durango safely if I have to anticipate every road condition. I too am a hop around town mom - do I sell out to the vans for extra room? Please give me any advice if I will fish-tail, etc., without full time 4WD? I understand part-time is only supposed to be used on heavy ice or heavy snow, but that's not usually the conditions I drive in. It's usually cold and wet, ice here but not there, a few inches of snow falling, etc. Please respond ASAP!
It's my understanding that the part-time 4WD system is normally used off-road or for inclement conditions - usually snow or HEAVY rain. But I'm sure others might know a little more - have you asked your sales rep? Not trying to belittle you, but he/she should be able to tell you what conditions are prime to shift into the PT 4WD mode. I can tell you that we bought the FT4WD '00 DD, loaded with everything and the mpg only suffers about 1-2 mpg from the PT system. To me, it was well worth it. As for icy conditions, it won't matter what system you have, losing traction is losing traction. A lot of drivers who have big 4WD SUV's (and trucks) think they are invincible on icy conditions - wrong. It sounds like you might be just fine with 2WD, and especially get the traction control option, and it's really kind of a no-brainer when to use or not to use. Overall, the DD handles pretty well in most bad weather conditions even without the 4WD system. But, with the FT system, you never have to worry about it, except for using High or Low gearing in the full-time mode. Good luck.
The information you supplied was GREAT! I have seen for the past few model years the rear AC listed as an option w/o heater but never saw a heater option anyway. My question for you is what is your source for this information. I am looking to purchase a 2001 model D in Oct-Nov and wanted a preview of whats to come.
My wife and I decided to stop by our local dealership to check out the Durango. I like everything about the truck, except the towing. According to the sticker, we can only tow 5,750 lb. on the 4.7 liter engine with 3.92 axle ratio. I thought this truck can tow at least 7,000 lbs. I really do not want to get a bigger engine due to gas mileage.
Does anyone tow their durango with 4.7 liter that is over 6,000 lbs.? Any feedback is appreciated
Please...anyone who has accurate info, I would appreciate hearing more on the 2001 model changes. Will the new rear a/c-heat be an honest a/c unit, with it's own condensor, etc? Any hope for them waking up and adding a rear flipper glass, like all of the other SUV's? Anything else we can learn????
Cause that is what I did after test driving others. The recent Motor Trend clocked the 4.7L with 3.92 gears at 8.2 seconds, much quicker than any of the competition. I totally believe this since I raced my wife's Dodge Avenger with 24 valve 6 cylinder engine, which is somewhere in the low 8.0s. She had overdrive off and I had the AC on and still took her.
I can't believe people are even putting posts questioning the Durango's speed. To me, that's is its biggest strong point. Manhatten, you undoubtedly have something wrong with your RT, cause it should be somewhere near my numbers. Even with the full time four wheel drive. Personally, I opted for the part time system because it should be a little quicker and heard it is better off-road.
I agree with you about the 4.7. I too have the 4.7 with 3.92 gear and it is also strong. Prolple have a hard time beleiving that the engine runs that good. If you look in the Sept Car&Driver the Durango R/T done 0-60 in 8.1 vs 8.2 for the 4.7. That not bad since the R/T has 15 more HP and 50 lbs more torque. You know, the 4.7 could be Dodge's most underated engine since the 340 back in the late 60s and early 70s.
I agree with you about the 4.7. I too have the 4.7 with 3.92 gear and it is also strong. People have a hard time believing that the engine runs that good. If you look in the Sept Car&Driver the Durango R/T done 0-60 in 8.1 vs 8.2 for the 4.7. That not bad since the R/T has 15 more HP and 50 lbs more torque. You know, the 4.7 could be Dodge's most underated engine since the 340 back in the late 60s and early 70s.
I took advantage of the 2000 clearance and I am picking up my D tomorrow. Just wanted any suggestions on things to look for and check out when I pick it up.
Update on my Durango R/T. Took to dealer who ran my R/T against Durango 5.9 and my R/T was faster by quite a bit. They ran it against a 2000 Tahoe 5.3 and my R/T was quicker too. Nothing wrong with my R/T. Again timed it using watch and speedo to 60 in 10.59 seconds for average on 3 runs. Added Poweraid under throttle body and Jet chip #90023-S and time went down to 3 run average to 9.11 I already had K&N Airaid system installed but chip made a very big difference. Shifts at 300 rpm higher and pulls after shift much better. A very noticable difference. Anybody getting a Jet chip, if you have an R/T make SURE you specify R/T and not just 5.9 as runs before were with wrong chip Macromotive sent. Their mistake they corrected. Took my car to a performance dealer who said they could never duplicate times in magazines and to take those times with a grain of salt. Most times posted are to sell cars and of course advertisement. While not a screamer, my R/T is acceptable now. Now runs away from my 2000 Dakoda with 4.7 with ease.
Does anyone know what changes are in-store for the 2001 Durango. I'm looking to buy a new SUV and one determining factor is a sunroof and rear flipper glass. Does anyone know if Dodge is considering this. Please help....
Comments
-mike
It has very little to do with 'tuning' for the rough. Leaf springs have their strong points too.
ie... they take up much less cabin space than coil springs.
If one recalls basic physics... any action has an equal and opposite reaction. When the rear wheels are pushing against the road, the axle is trying to 'spin' the opposite direction of the wheels. This causes the leaf springs to twist or wind up. If a bump occurs that causes either rear wheel to loose traction, the springs suddenly snap back. If this cycle continues... you have the "wheel hop" you describe.
The devices that reduce this tendency usually have some type of '"snubber" that does not allow the wind-up to occur in the first place. The axle torque is directed into the frame instead of thru the leaf springs.
-mike
Thanks for responding so quickly. Basically, I guess it's just different designs that cause this "hop". I can live with it as long as there's nothing wrong with the vehicle. That "X" brace that you mentioned (rcarboni), does that affect warranty? And how much does something like that cost? Also, what else could be done (you mentioned sway bar) that could improve the suspension/"hop that is either factory or third party installed that would be worth the money.
Thanks again everyone for your knowledge and input. It is much appreciated.
Mike F.
-mike
-mike
-mike
If you just want the speed, I would buy a 5.9 SLT+ and add performance mods yourself as it would be less expensive.
manhattan2,
You should be running a lot faster than 13s. You might want to have the dealer check it out. Also, a jet chip does nothing for this engine, and a K&N will only add a few hp. A better intake is the Intense Performance Stage III(www.intenseperformance.com) that draws in cool air.
Chrylser wants to phase out the 5.9 and replace it with the hemi 5.7 (my next D!). I don't doubt they would also want to push the 4.7, but what numbers do they have to show the 4.7 is faster? Are you just taking someone's word without proof?
I watched a stock 5.9 RT DAK run 15.2's and another with a heavy fiber galss Cap on the bed run 15.7's.
Thus low 16.0s would probably be the normal time for a D.
Also, who would plunk 35K$ on a truck and not testdrive it?? If it was such a dog, why did you buy it??
One last point, anyone can see from the brochure, that he RT package gives 5Hp, some trim level equipment, and wheels.
Go buy a Mall Runner, then you will see what a dog is !
NV242 for about 300$ more. The FT4wd works great. It splits touque about 50/50 front to back which is great. You can also lock it in 4 HI and 4Lo.
Most cheap systems, AKA cute ute(Honda CRV, RAV4, Scoobado) use viscous couplers for their FT systems. However, on theirs your rear diff has to slip and loose traction first, then the fluid in the coupler(changes viscosity) transmits some touque to the front. Of course your rear end slides all over the place. Not so with the D's.
Very stableand you can use it on dry pavement.
You can opt for the part time system, but you can only engage it in 4 Hi when there is snow or off raod.
I agree with Scott Q, there are some envious people who for some reason come out of the woodwork to bash the Durangos. Mine has been damn good, it is a great SUV. If you want a nice well equipped SUV with great towing capacity, strong drivetrain, get a D. If you want to spend the same $$$ but dont mind a V6 you can go with any others, but mind you, look at the tourque and weight specs. Then ask yourself if you can live with a SUV that weighs practically the same, yet has 100+ ft-lbs less tourque and gets about the same gas mileage and doesnt have a 3rd seat. If you tow anything the D is the way to go.
Good luck with whatever you choose.
It's too bad you can't dis-engage the awd. I like to dis-engage mine when I'm on the highway in the dry weather.
The soobies are NOT the same as the CRV and RAV 4.
They have a 90/10 split front to rear on the Automatic Transmissions, and 50/50 on the Manual Transmissions. In the VDC model its a 35/65 split with traction control. The Escape, CRV and RAV 4 are as you explained...
The Durango is a great tow vehicle though, I'll definitely give it high marks in that area...
-mike
In regards to the Subarus, you are correct. They act like a FWD. Until this year(as I understand it) all were 90/10 split.
My point on these( family members, co workers have them) is that they can get squirly when you loose traction on the drive wheels when the tourque shoots to the nondrive wheels, especially on wet surfaces or if you goose it on a corner.
I like the D, since it tends not to do this. Plus the wheel base is so long that it is more stable.
Most people who buy these systems, have no idea how they work nor there limitations.
FWIW, My father has a 99 D. It has the NV242, but has a 2WD mode. We get the same mileage, 15 MPG around town, 16.5 mixed, 17 MPG hghway. Thus I conclude, there is no penalty when they eliminated the 2WD mode in the NV242.
I am saving my $$$ for the 2003 model when they put the 5.7 Hemi in them. The competion wont know what hit them then when you can get the D with 350 HP
later
You use good logic, Chevy pickup vs Dodge SUV
Maybe a better comparison would be, Suburban vs RT
Also did you order the RT or buy off the lot?? If off the lot, it must have fooled you into thinking it was fast or why else would you plunk down 35K$$ on a deal from the lot. Or did the salesman have the secret nitrous button turned on when you floored it during the test drive
power passenger seat
newly designed seats w/heat and power bolsters
push button transfer case
new rear air w heater
16" X 8" wheels on slt+
one new color a deep red color
deleted one of the grey colors
new controls on air & heater
thats the major stuff that I can remember
Scott Q
in Post 281, You state uou have a 99 Chevy 4wd 5.3 L. You have a Durango RT(which you are complaining about), in this post you state you have a 4.7 DAK Quad Cab and a Audi Quattro 2.7T
So in my mind you have spent 35K for the D, another 30K for the 99 Chevy 4WD PU, Probably 30K+ for the DAK and 25K?? on the Audi!
That is over 120K$+
Wow! You buy a lot of cars.
Keep your D another 2 yrs and I'll make you an offer
I love the AWD on it but was curious what downsides any of you have seen on the AWD side v. the PT4wd versions.
-mike
Also, I find the Trooper personally ugly, dont care for the box construction, so out of date. Carrying the spare on the back also is so out of date.Also two brother in laws had 89 Troopers, one had blown head gasket/cracked head at 80K, other had two failed rear diffs, leaky rear main seal. His wife had bad luck with a 87 I-Mark Turbo, should have gotten a Shelby Turbo. The turbo failed at 60K which. Told them to run synthetic, didnt listen. My Turbo cars still run, two with over 140K on them.
Also why are the sales of the Trooper in the tank?? Looks like they will sell under 20K unit this year?? Guess the market has rejected them. They are 35th in sales in SUV class. Go Here:
http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svolsu.asp
Were sales always that low?? My Neighbor had a 93 which he paid 27K$ for. Seemed fairly good until he hit about 90K, then he had problems with the AC and injection. Traded it in on a Volvo.
-mike
They are great cars, cheap to run, easy to tweak, get great gas mileage, and parts are plentiful. Just got back from an SDAC event, watched many run 12's with simple mods. For example at dyno day a guy with a 2.5 Turbo and 160K on the short block put 247 HP and 386 ft-lbs of tourque to the wheels with his 86 Omni GLHS. Note he runs 12.5's. Has 3" exh, volvo intercooler, a 10$ grainger valve to control boost, +20 injectors, 30$ digital AF guage to monitor fuel curve, fresh clutch, and slicks.
Not to shabby.
So please dont rag on K cars, if the people who owned them took care of them, they would routinely get 200K miles. I have seen many with that mileage over the years. That 2.2/2.5 block is indestructable. Have seen many run at 25+ lbs of boost on stock rods, pistons, bottome end.
Later
These were the 2.2l engines, not the Turbo 2.5, I loved my '86 Lebaron GTS Turbo (til it got stolen and they bent the frame driving over a median, and as a result the tranny kept going on it after that)
-mike
The information you supplied was GREAT! I have seen for the past few model years the rear AC listed as an option w/o heater but never saw a heater option anyway. My question for you is what is your source for this information. I am looking to purchase a 2001 model D in Oct-Nov and wanted a preview of whats to come.
Thank You
Eric
Does anyone tow their durango with 4.7 liter that is over 6,000 lbs.? Any feedback is appreciated
-Max
Will I be loosing much in safety? Help! He has not been very helpful (surprise, surprise).
I can't believe people are even putting posts questioning the Durango's speed. To me, that's is its biggest strong point. Manhatten, you undoubtedly have something wrong with your RT, cause it should be somewhere near my numbers. Even with the full time four wheel drive. Personally, I opted for the part time system because it should be a little quicker and heard it is better off-road.
Thanks!